United States Court of Appeals for
the
Federal Circuit, case 99-1402,Conclusions
WILLIAM
O. SCHISM and ROBERT L. REINLIE v. UNITED STATES
What every Senator and every
Representative should know.
It's the greatest swindle of all time...
It's a broken contract with America's military retirees.
DECIDED: February 8, 2001
Extracted from http://mrgrg-ms.org/d99-1402.html#conclusion, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 99-1402, WILLIAM O. SCHISM and ROBERT L. REINLIE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee...
The retirees entered active duty in the armed forces and completed at least twenty years service on the good faith belief that the government would fulfill its promises. The terms of the contract were set when the retirees entered the service and fulfilled their obligation. The government cannot unilaterally amend the contract terms now. “In contracts involving the government, as with all contractual relationships, rights vest and contract terms become binding when, after arms length negotiation, all parties to the contract agree to exchange real obligations for real benefits.” Winstar, 64 F.3d at 1546. Because failure to perform a contractual duty when it is due is a breach, see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 235(2) (1981), the government breached its implied-in-fact contract with the retirees when it failed to provide them with health care benefits at no cost.[3] The district court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to the government and, on the record before us, abused its discretion in denying the retiree’s motion for summary judgment of liability.
Conclusion:
Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida is reversed and the case is remanded for determination of damages. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WE WON! THE COURT SAID WE HAD A CONTRACT.
November 18, 2002
Extracted from http://mrgrg-ms.org/f99-1402.html#conclusion, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 99-1402, WILLIAM O. SCHISM and ROBERT L. REINLIE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee...
Conclusion:
We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim.
Federal judges have a duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws, even if that means making unpleasant or unpopular decisions. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to make law, not simply to interpret and apply it. As our predecessor court said:
Congress has the power and authority under the Constitution to establish a system for the payment of retired pay [for military service members] and to change the system from time to time. . . . We understand and appreciate the dissatisfaction of the plaintiffs with the change in the retirement pay system, as they have rendered long and faithful service to our country in time of peace and war. However, if they are to get any relief, it must come from Congress, as this is not within [a court's] jurisdiction.
Abbott v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 384, 390 (1973). Perhaps Congress will consider using its legal power to address the moral claims raised by Schism and Reinlie on their own behalf, and indirectly for other affected retirees.
For the reasons stated above, the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government is AFFIRMED.
THEN WE LOST! THE COURT SAID THE PROMISE OF HEALTH CARE WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND RELIED UPON, BUT WE LOST BECAUSE THE CONGRESS HAS NEVER RATIFIED OR ACQUIESCED TO THE PROMISE.
Did Congress ratify
or acquiesce to the
military retiree medical care promise?
Look at this material by Colonel (ret) Robert L. Geasland and you decide.
E-mail Robert L. Geasland
(Posted on the
Internet 22 April 2005)
- June 1997 House Hearings on HR 1119...Report 105 32 dtd 16 Jun 97. Page 369...
"The committee is distressed about recent disclosures that recruiting materials have for decades failed to provide specific information about the total spectrum of retirement benefits, or worse, misrepresented the level of benefit that was authorized. The committee appreciates the anger felt by many retirees who viewed the commitments made by recruiters when they entered active duty as promises; promises that the retirees now know will not be kept. The committee considers this an intolerable situation that must be corrected".
RECENT DISCLOSURES? INTOLERABLE SITUATION?
- 1964...Report No. 67, H.A.S.C. dtd 30 Sept 64....Page 10365. Recommendation...
"That the Department of Defense revise their recruitment and retention literature to conform to present government policy that service-provided health and medical care is available to military retirees and their dependents only in military facilities on a space available basis".
- Mar 1966 House Hearings on HR 9271, 13582, & 13538. Rep Charles E Bennett on page 5743...
"It has been charged in some quarters that medical care is not due these retirees". Maybe we should just ask those who served on active duty how the recruiter and the Defense Department as far back as they can remember promised them medical care would be provided upon their retirement. The fact of the matter is that as far back as the Civil War our Government provided these benefits, and they were established of right by statute: 1n 1884".
- H.A.S.C. No. 93-70, Oct-Nov 1974... Rep Dan Daniel, page 226...
"The observation I want to make Mr. Chairman, is something that has bothered me ever since I've been in Congress. Charlie (Bennett) referred to it a moment ago about making promises that aren't kept. Right now, in our misleading advertising campaigns, and the pressure on recruiters to meet quotas, I'm afraid Charlie, it's going to make this problem worse instead of better".
- H.A.S.C. No. 93-70, Oct-Nov 1974... Rep Charles E. Bennett, page 227...
"Before I close I want to echo something about what you said. I looked at the printed material in the Navy--looked at it very carefully--I have a doctor's degree in law, an earned doctor's degree with honors. I practiced law for 10 years. I think it would have taken a rather astute individual to have found this caveat that health care for retirees is only on a space available basis"....So I Would like to suggest that the staff of this committee might well call in all the printed material. You can't control What a recruiter says and there is too much stuff printed in their material".
Recent Disclosures?
How about decades of acquiescence!
(home)
E-mail Floyd Sears the Web Master